The Library
Comparing the content and quality of video, telephone, and face-to-face consultations : a non-randomised, quasi-experimental, exploratory study in UK primary care
Tools
Tools
Tools
Hammersley, Victoria, Donaghy, Eddie, Parker, Richard, McNeilly, Hannah, Atherton, Helen, Bikker, Annemieke, Campbell, John and McKinstry, Brian (2019) Comparing the content and quality of video, telephone, and face-to-face consultations : a non-randomised, quasi-experimental, exploratory study in UK primary care. British Journal of General Practice, 69 (686). e595-e604. doi:10.3399/bjgp19X704573
|
PDF
WRAP-comparing-content-quality-video-telephone-face-to-face-consultations-non-randomised-quasi-experimental-exploratory-study-UK-primary care-Atherton-2019.pdf - Published Version - Requires a PDF viewer. Available under License Creative Commons Attribution 4.0. Download (429Kb) | Preview |
Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3399/bjgp19X704573
Abstract
Background: Growing demands on primary care services have led to policymakers promoting video consultations (VCs) to replace routine face-to-face consultations (FTFCs) in general practice.
Aim: To explore the content, quality, and patient experience of VC, telephone (TC), and FTFCs in general practice.
Design and setting: Comparison of audio-recordings of follow-up consultations in UK primary care.
Method: Primary care clinicians were provided with video-consulting equipment. Participating patients required a smartphone, tablet, or computer with camera. Clinicians invited patients requiring a follow-up consultation to choose a VC, TC, or FTFC. Consultations were audio-recorded and analysed for content and quality. Participant experience was explored in post-consultation questionnaires. Case notes were reviewed for NHS resource use.
Results: Of the recordings, 149/163 were suitable for analysis. VC recruits were younger, and more experienced in communicating online. FTFCs were longer than VCs (mean difference +3.7 minutes, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.1 to 5.2) or TCs (+4.1 minutes, 95% CI = 2.6 to 5.5). On average, patients raised fewer problems in VCs (mean 1.5, standard deviation [SD] 0.8) compared with FTFCs (mean 2.1, SD 1.1) and demonstrated fewer instances of information giving by clinicians and patients. FTFCs scored higher than VCs and TCs on consultation-quality items.
Conclusion: VC may be suitable for simple problems not requiring physical examination. VC, in terms of consultation length, content, and quality, appeared similar to TC. Both approaches appeared less ‘information rich’ than FTFC. Technical problems were common and, though patients really liked VC, infrastructure issues would need to be addressed before the technology and approach can be mainstreamed in primary care.
| Item Type: | Journal Article | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Subjects: | R Medicine > R Medicine (General) R Medicine > RA Public aspects of medicine |
||||||
| Divisions: | Faculty of Medicine > Warwick Medical School > Health Sciences Faculty of Medicine > Warwick Medical School > Health Sciences > Social Science & Systems in Health (SSSH) Faculty of Medicine > Warwick Medical School |
||||||
| Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH): | Physician and patient -- Computer-assisted instruction, Medical consultation , Communication in medicine, Telecommunication in medicine, Videoconferencing | ||||||
| Journal or Publication Title: | British Journal of General Practice | ||||||
| Publisher: | Royal College of General Practitioners | ||||||
| ISSN: | 0960-1643 | ||||||
| Official Date: | September 2019 | ||||||
| Dates: |
|
||||||
| Volume: | 69 | ||||||
| Number: | 686 | ||||||
| Page Range: | e595-e604 | ||||||
| DOI: | 10.3399/bjgp19X704573 | ||||||
| Status: | Peer Reviewed | ||||||
| Publication Status: | Published | ||||||
| Access rights to Published version: | Open Access | ||||||
| RIOXX Funder/Project Grant: |
|
Request changes or add full text files to a record
Repository staff actions (login required)
 |
View Item |
Downloads
Downloads per month over past year
